The most annoying thing about noticing gender issues in films and television is that you can't *not* notice them when its inconvenient. So while this second trailer for The Bourne Redundancy, err The Bourne Legacy, has a crap-load of great actors, some solid stunt-work, and a time-twisty narrative that seemingly takes place at the same time as The Bourne Ultimatum. But couldn't the screenwriters think of something more original than "Jeremy Renner rescues his hot doctor from bad guys and takes her on the run with him"? Rachel Weisz is an Oscar winner and one of the better actresses of her generation, but whenever she treads into big-studio productions she almost always finds herself as the 'tag-along girl'. Whether in Chain Reaction (one of her first films back in 1996), Constantine (ironically both with Keanu Reeves), and now in this production, she's the pretty face who gets caught up in the hero's peril and gets dragged along and periodically rescued from scary bad guys. Yes the first film had a 'drag-along girl' (Franka Potente), but the film went out of its way to emphasize just how much danger Jason Bourne was putting her and her family in by virtue of his intrusion. It's a big difference: potential menace versus lily-white savior.
Obviously this is the template for any number of older thrillers (especially the 1970s-types that the Bourne films often try to emulate), but its still dispiriting to see an actress who damn-well should either get her own action film or at least get to play a villain taking a role where she's 'the pretty girl in peril'. Aside from that core narrative annoyance, the film looks okay. I still laugh at how the film seems to be selling the idea that Jeremy Renner's character is "Jason Bourne... IN THE EXTREME!" and trying desperately to convince you that this spin-off makes sense in the already established world. Obviously Universal is very considered about how a Bourne film without Jason Bourne will actually sell, hence the several audio/visual references to Matt Damon's Jason Bourne. As such, the trailer is actually somewhat confusing since it spends its second act rehashing the third film before launching into its own narrative again. Anyway, Live and Let Die 2.0 debuts on August 3rd. As always, we'll see.
Scott Mendelson
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Review: Snow White and the Huntsman (2012) is a dull, drab, and aggressively passive chore.
Snow White and the Huntsman
2012127 minutes
rated PG-13
by Scott Mendelson
Strange is a movie that immediately establishes its dramatic stakes but spends the rest of the film waiting for the main characters to actually take seemingly obvious action. But such is the case with Rupert Sander's big-budget Snow White reinvention. While the idea of retelling Snow White on a more epic scale with bits and pieces from Lord of the Rings thrown in isn't the most inspired idea (Snow White: A Tale of Terror went the Gothic horror route over a decade ago), there remain elements for a primal hero's adventure with a dash of feminist subtext thrown in for good measure. But the picture seems to go out of its way to dismiss or ignore what shows promise while aimlessly wandering around in a literal and metaphorical dark forest waiting for its inevitable action climax to occur. It fails at least partially because it strands its lead characters with nowhere to go while stranding its lead heroine with nothing to do.
The film's strongest section is in its initial reel, which gravely recounts how the cunning and magical Ravenna (Charlize Theron) came to power through seduction and murder. Theron is obviously having a grand time as the wicked queen, and her establishing cruelty quickly gets us on Snow White's (Kristen Stewart) side. The film flirts with social relevance by giving her a tragic and sympathetic back-story that stems from the all-too familiar idea that a woman's youth and beauty is both her greatest weapon and her only real currency in a male-dominated world. It's a potent theme that is sadly all-but forgotten and rendered irrelevant after the first act. In fact, once Snow White narrowly escapes death and finds herself in the dark forest, she and the film both fall into a sleep of sorts. Oh sure there is temporary humor and energy in Chris Hemsworth's somewhat robust turn as a reluctant hunter sent into the woods to snatch the princess under false pretenses. But once Snow White escapes, the movie's narrative stops dead for a good 60-75 minutes with nothing of note to justify our interest.
There is one compelling detour, involving a village of widowed/orphaned women who have literally scarred themselves in order to protect themselves from the queen's beauty-obsessed wrath, but it's over in a flash and the film is poorer for its brevity. Like John Carter from a few months back, this film quickly establishes the core conflict and sits on its butt for most of the running time until our passive hero finally decides to do something about it. And like that mega-budget fantasy film, what happens prior to the big pay off isn't very entertaining and the actual pay off is pretty underwhelming. Despite the promise of big-scale epic action, Sanders shoots most of the film in that too-close, too-choppy style that renders much of it hard to follow (there is literally one action beat that suggests that Hemsworth is felled by a phantom punch). The would-be grand finale is merely a few beats of mostly nameless/faceless soldiers bloodlessly hacking at each other before the main protagonists and antagonists face off. The film runs over two hours and at least 30 minutes of that is spent on tangents that exist only because of fidelity to the would-be source material. Despite being played by (among others) Bob Hoskins, Ray Winstone, and Toby Jones, the dwarfs serve no purpose in the overall story and are nothing but a distraction. Ditto the protracted third-act (...minor spoiler...) sequence involving the whole poison apple and sleeping princess cliche. Come what may, at least Mirror Mirror knew to ditch that unnecessary diversion.
Snow White herself is a shockingly hollow character who is given no real personality and no character arc of her own. Say what you will about Lily Collins's flat star turn back in March, but her Snow White actually discovered the queen's cruelty and slowly learned about the injustices that needed to be righted. No such luck here. Snow White has no character arc, no discernible personality traits, and not a trace of anything that would merit our sympathy other than a tragic childhood and that fact that she's physically attractive, which is ironic considering the initial moralizing. Kristen Stewart has shockingly little to do for the first 100 minutes of the film, and about as much dialogue as routinely given to a Charles Bronson character. I'm generally a fan of Stewart's, previously saluting her turns in Into the Wild and Adventureland among others while even enjoying her underrated initial turn as Bella Swan in the first Twilight. But this is a lifeless and artless performance, and it frankly it would bad enough to hurt her career as a big-studio lead if she seemingly had any interest in such a thing (she's allegedly quite good in On the Road).
Charlize Theron is terrific when she's onscreen, but she pretty much exits the film after the first 40 minutes and her screen-time after that amounts to a cameo. Sam Claflin is just as dull here as he was in Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides and is quickly becoming the go-to actor for boring boy-ish love interests. On a slight digression, the film never explains why he can morally justify teaming up with the bad guys in order to also track down Snow White, turning a blind eye as innocents are murdered in front of him. Sam Spruell is somewhat engaging as the queen's loyal brother (he's the villain that actually engages in onscreen action as opposed to sitting in the castle), with his best moment being a blink-and-you-miss it moment that implies that his relationship with the queen may be incestuous.
We have a flat and lifeless narrative punctuated by unimpressive and choppy action, a fascinating feminist subtext that is dropped in favor of generic heroics. All of this is rounded out by interesting characters who aren't onscreen enough and uninteresting characters that dominate the latter 2/3 of the film. Snow White and the Huntsman is a failure both as a reinvention and a movie. It earns points for production value, Theron and Hemsworths' respective star turns, and for a promising initial reel that makes promises the film can't keep. But like John Carter, Snow White and the Huntsman goes nowhere and takes forever to get there. Just because it makes an effort to be a real movie doesn't justify its failure as a quality film.
Grade: C-
Watch/Discuss: Les Miserables teaser delivers the awesome, shoots the film to the top of my 2012 must-see list.
Holy shit. I got goosebumps just watching this thing. It's no secret that Les Miserables is my favorite stage musical, however unoriginal a choice that may be. So the source material is golden, you've got an all-star cast of actors who damn-well can sing, plus an Oscar-winning director who A) has complete artistic freedom and B) arguably has to prove that his Best Director Oscar win wasn't merely a bunch of older voters screwing over David Fincher. And if I may offer a note of cautious optimism, it's all-too easy to craft a winning teaser for a popular Broadway show. This follows the same template as the first Rent teaser, where you take the most iconic song of the show and set a visual montage to it for 90-150 seconds. But we know that Anne Hathaway kills her big number (like that was ever in doubt) and that everyone else at least looks authentic while Tom Hooper seems to be emphasizing the period-specific poverty and squalor in a way that's a little tough to do on stage. It's no secret that the film will feature live on-set recordings rather than lip-syncing to pre-recorded studio sessions, and it's too early to know if that intriguing gamble paid off. Although that heart-wrenching closeup and vocal break-up at 1:05 suggests it did. But yeah, this is probably the film I most want to see after The Dark Knight Rises opens. Hell, if given the choice to see one of them right now, I'm not sure which I'd pick (okay, I'd pick Dark Knight Rises simply because I don't have the script memorized by heart). One minor marketing nitpick, the onscreen text 'The Dream Lives' is borderline tasteless considering both the obvious text of the song in question and Fantine's character arc. Anyway, Tom Hopper's Les Miserables opens on December 14th. If my wife doesn't like it, she can stay home with the kids while I take whichever of her family members wins the straw game to the press screening. If Universal has truly pulled this off, then Battleship is completely forgiven. But, for the sake of cautious optimism, I'm including the dynamite first teasers to Rent and The Phantom of the Opera after the jump.
Scott Mendelson
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Guest Essay: "The Part-Time Critic" Kyle Leaman pontificates on Jackie Chan's action-film retirement.
From time to time, I'm able to offer a guest essay to my readers. Today's guest author is Kyle Leaman. Those who have been reading this site since the very beginning may remember Mr. Leaman and his work at The Part-Time Critic. He was one of my first regular readers and someone who I linked to from time-to-time as his work was often both insightful and insanely comprehensive. A couple years back (just before he retired from writing) he compiled a list, complete with mini-essays and YouTube excerpts, of the 100 greatest fights in Jackie Chan's action career. It's so exhaustive that you may need a stunt man to get through it all in one sitting. So when I read that Jackie Chan had announced that he was officially retiring from action films, Mr. Leaman was the first person I thought of. I asked him if he had anything to say about it and he thankfully obliged. So here is, unabridged and unedited save for token formatting, Kyle Leaman's "The Punctuation of an Action Career".
The Punctuation Point of an Action Career
by Kyle Leaman
In 1978, a film by the name Snake in the Eagle's Shadow became a breakout action hit in Hong Kong and the star of the film, a 24-year-old Jackie Chan, followed it up with the equally successful Drunken Master. Chan then went on to release a major action film in every single decade since, an unprecedented and unequaled 30-year run. To put that into perspective, Jason Statham would need to keep making action films until the year 2032 just to draw even with Chan's run. Even I don't think I could stomach that many Cranks and Transporters.
While promoting his newest film at the Cannes film festival, Jackie declared that Chinese Zodiac would be his last action film. The following day Jackie clarified the comments on his Facebook page, saying that the film would be his last "big action movie." What exactly does Chan mean by "big action movie," and does this mean we should start writing eulogies for his action career? Is this the end of drunken boxing, super cops, and big stunts? Will everyday objects like ladders and clothes racks now cease to become props of mass destruction? If we are to understand what Chan means to do with Chinese Zodiac, the punctuation that he is trying to put on his career, we really have to understand the story he has been writing over the last four decades.
After struggling to step out of the Bruce Lee sized shadow cast upon the entire Hong Kong film industry, Chan's 1978 successes gave him the opportunity to begin casting his own shadow on what an action film could be. In the following years, his projects began showing signs of his unique voice and vision, but it wasn't until 1983's Project A that Jackie's true potential and unique gifts would be realized in a single film. Project A(a film I consider to be Chan's most quintessential) would not only star a Chan that did all his own stunts, but whom also wrote, directed, and choreographed the film as well. All of the elements that Chan has become so well loved for (broad physical comedy of errors, homage's to silent film comedians, intricately choreographed fights, big stunts, and a family-friendly tone) are present in this film. It's this prototype of film that I consider to be what Chan calls his "big action movie," and it's the first film that truly began to write the story of what a Jackie Chan action film could be.
After Project A, Chan has been involved in over 50 film projects. I would categorize his post-Project A projects as follows; day-player, role-player, and big action. What I am calling day-player projects are ones where Chan is sparsely used and has no significant on-screen role or artistic control of the film. Examples of this are films like 1999's King of Comedy or the Kung Fu Panda series, and account for about 1/5 of his projects. For this essay, we can dismiss these roles as inconsequential to the discussion.
Chan's role-player projects are ones that feature Chan in a significant on-screen way, but where he takes minimal creative responsibility on the project. Chan may still do his own stunts and choreography, but that's about as far as his creative control goes on these projects. Most of Jackie's American output falls into this category, such as Shanghai Noon, The Spy Next Door, and Rush Hour. Due to Chan's limited creative control of these projects, he's forced to try and fuse his particular vision into in the larger artistic vision, producing a range of quality from pitiful (The Tuxedo and The Medallion) to excellent (Shanghai Knights and The Karate Kid). By my count, nearly 2/5 of his projects are of this kind.
At last we come to the defining category of Chan's filmography and the category that Chan claims he is retiring from, big action. These are projects on which Chan takes full control of nearly every aspect and uses the film as a vehicle to showcase himself. Since these films allow Chan near free-reign, they also tell us the most about Chan's cinematic vision and disproportionately define his legacy. This category was initiated by Project A and makes up the final 2/5 of all projects Chan would take on afterwards, including his newest film Chinese Zodiac. This is the type of film Jackie is retiring from, and by my accounts, has essentially been retired from since 2006's Robin-B-Hood.
After Project A in 1983, Chan almost solely devoted himself to the "Big Action Movie." This run ended after the mid-90s success of his big American imports like Rumble in the Bronx and Who Am I. In 1998 Jackie made Rush Hour, his first role-playing project after over a decade of big action projects. The next six years were mostly comprised of hit-or-miss American made role-playing projects, with an occasional Chinese film (The Accidental Spy) in between. While creatively frustrating, I think this role-playing phase provided his body with a much needed rest from the physically and creatively exhausting toll his big action movies rang up.
In 2004, Chan returned to his big action movie roots with New Police Story. While featuring much of Chan's signature elements, it was ultimately a failed attempt by Chan to merge his successful pre-1998 output into the more modern action template. Chan's big action follow-ups, The Myth (2005) and Robin-B-Hood(2006), were also creatively disappointing. Despite his efforts, Chan could not recreate the commercial and artistic accomplishments of his previous big action period.
Honestly, I think in these three films we witnessed the outer limits of what Chan had to offer in the arena of big action. This isn't a knock or insult to Chan, I think it's just the acknowledgement that he had exhausted what he had to say in the action genre, his story was coming to a close. I suppose it would be like saying that Michael Jordan had run out of new basketball moves to show the world or that Gordon Ramsay ran out of new recipes; not an insult, just an acknowledgement of reality.
I believe Chan recognized this as well, and that is why (beyond being physically exhausted) he has taken on the challenge of an acting career outside of action. After a six-year hiatus (2006-2012) from big action projects, Chan returns to the big action movie with Chinese Zodiac. Even without Chan's announcement, it seems to me that Chinese Zodiac isn't a sign that Chan has found new creative energy and is entering another period of big action projects, but that he wants to close out his big action career before his body gives out (he's 58 years old), and so that the 2004-2006 run would not be his final contribution to the story he'd been writing in the action genre for over 30 years.
Thus, it doesn't seem tragic for Chan to be ending his big action career with Chinese Zodiac; it seems more like the punctuation point on a sentence that has already ended. In an age where there is always the possibility for a star's career to be more like a repetitive run-on sentence, it can be refreshing for a star to recognize and mark the end.
Looking past the ending of Chan's big action career, I think we can still expect him to be involved with action films, but in the role-playing sense similar to his American output from 1998-2004. I think the big question his fans seem to be asking in regards to his transition to traditional acting is, "Does Chan have anything particularly unique to say in the realm of drama, as he did in the realm of action?" While he's only been in traditional roles for a few years now, the answer to that question seems to be, "Not yet." He has seen some triumphs like 2009's Shinjuku Incident and 2010's The Karate Kid, but he's mostly experienced mixed results.
Looking at Jackie Chan's career as of now, he can be understood to have made one of the most distinctive and unique contributions not only to the realm of action films, but to all of cinema. If Chan were to continue and finish his career with nothing but role-playing action and drama projects of varying quality, then it would still mark an impressive coda to his already impressive career. To expect anything more from him is fairly unrealistic and worse, a bit greedy. So this December, call up your friends, head to the theatre, and enjoy the punctuation point to a story that Jackie Chan has been writing since 1983's Project A. Sitting in the theatre, I only hope the punctuation is more exclamation than period.
Sunday, May 27, 2012
Weekend Box Office: (05/27/12): Men In Black 3 tops Memorial Day while The Moonrise Kingdom slays in limited release.
Of course, the real story of the film's eventual profitability will be international numbers. Thus its $202 million worldwide debut (as of Monday) means that the film may in fact pay off in the end. The prior Men In Black films opened during a time when international grosses were just starting to expand, with the first film earning $589 million worldwide back in 1997 ($251 million domestic) and Men In Black 2 earning $441 million worldwide ($190 million domestic). On the plus side, the film is surprisingly good and it will likely be the "general audiences' second-choice" movie for the next few weeks provided they have had their fill of Avengers repeat viewings. Regular movie-goers may have vaguely heard about the behind-the-scenes issues, but that's more for we pundits to obsess about and it certainly doesn't show in the final product. Like that other 80s/90s mega-star Tom Cruise, Will Smith's films tend to be leggy so the final financial picture on this one is not yet written. Oh, and don't believe anything you read about the box office take being affected by that six-minute Amazing Spider-Man preview that played in front of IMAX theaters. Other than perhaps fueling some moviegoers to choose IMAX over 3D or 2D, it didn't make a darn bit of difference anymore than that Dark Knight Rises IMAX prologue showing on 10% of the IMAX theaters impacted Mission: Impossible-Ghost Protocol's IMAX debut back in December.
Not to be outdone by a mere change in arbitrary rankings, The Avengers crossed the $500 million mark on Saturday. That's just 23 days, better than the 32 days it took Avatar and (more relavant to the discussion) the 45 days it took The Dark Knight. With an estimated $523 million by Monday, the Marvel blockbuster looks to surpass The Dark Knight ($533 million) to become the third-biggest domestic grosser in a few days. With $1.295 billion worldwide thus far, it's merely a matter of time (again no inter) before it surpasses Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II ($1.3 billion) to also become the third-biggest worldwide grosser as well. It's $37 million Fri-Sun gross makes it the number two 4th-weekend of all time, behind Avatar's $50 million fourth weekend, besting the $28 million fourth weekends of Titanic and Spider-Man as well as the $26 million-grossing weekend four of The Dark Knight. Dropping just 35% in its fourth weekend, The Avengers seems sure to surpass the original $600 million gross of Titanic and has an outside shot of besting the film's new 3D rerelease-enhanced total of $658 million. At this point, it appears that the only thing that can slow down this film is the inevitable loss of screens as June kicks into gear (altough the first three weekends of June have only two wide releases apiece while July has just six wide releases the entire month).
In holdover news, Battleship got clipped by the combined might of Men In Black 3, The Avengers, and its own raging mediocrity, falling 60% even during a holiday-enhanced weekend for $10 million over Fri-Sun. The film should have about $47 million by Monday and it will now struggle to even reach the mere $72 million earned in America by the equally wrongheaded John Carter. With its international run ending fast at $232 million overseas thus far, the film will probably reach around $325 million in the best-case scenario, which isn't nearly enough to justify to $220-$250 million price-tag. Unless Universal can turn this into a Universal Studios theme part ride, this is basically a waste of time/money for all involved. Dark Shadows continues to struggle under the weight of its own irrelevance as well, as the Tim Burton private joke has earned $64 million. It should crawl to $80 million, with similar overseas results, which would be fine if the film cost $90 million and not $150 million. What To Expect When You're Expecing dropped just 30% in weekend two, but that's just $7 million off a $10 million debut. Still, the $30 million Lionsgate production now has $23 million as of Monday, so it should reach its budget domestically. Lionsgate sold off the foreign distribution for this one, as they so often do, so their financial exposure is modest at best.
Paramount's The Dictator fell about 45% in weekend two, with a projected $12 million four-day holiday weekend. That will give the obscenely expensive comedy (official budget - $70 million, unofficial budget - $100 million) $44 million after two weekends of play, meaning it will hit $70 million domestic in the best-case scenario with about the same likely overseas busines. If it actually cost $70 million, then DVD and what-not will eventually put it in the black, but expect major budget constraints for Sacha Baron Cohen's next comedic vehicle. The big independent film sensation of early summer remains The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel, which expanded into semi-wide release over the holiday to superb results. The Fox Searchlight film expanded to 1,233 theaters and earned another $8 million over the holiday for a new projected total of $18 million. It's already clear that this one is the official designated 'mainstream arthouse film' of summer 2012, and its longterm fate will also be determined by how successfully Sony Classics handles Woody Allen's From Rome With Love (June 22nd) and if Focus Features can successfully expand The Moonrise Kingdom. May Fox Searchlight have even half that level of success with their next major release, the truly terrific Beasts of the Southern Wild which debuts in limited release on June 27th.
That's it for this weekend. Join us next time when Universal unleashes the mega-budget Snow White meets Lord of the Rings hybrid, Snow White and the Huntsman.
Scott Mendelson
Friday, May 25, 2012
Review: Men In Black 3 (2012) is the best film in the series.
Men In Black 3 (2D)
2012103 minutes
rated PG-13
by Scott Mendelson
I don't know how much Men In Black 3 actually cost. I don't know the details of the behind-the-scenes turmoil that shut the film down for a period so the filmmakers could frantically rewrite the screenplay. I don't know what got removed and what got added or changed along the way. But the highest compliment that I can pay this third installment in the series is that none of the backstage drama shows. The story makes sense, there are few real plot holes, and the actors exude confidence and charm in a screenplay that balances trailer-friendly set pieces and gags with genuine storytelling and character growth. The world may not have needed another Men In Black picture, but director Barry Sonnenfeld and writers Etan Cohen, David Koepp, Jeff Nathanson, and Michael Soccio have crafted a shockingly good one, arguably the best in the series. This is accomplished and polished popcorn entertainment that is refreshingly light on its feet. For what it's worth, I thought the first Men In Black was somewhat overrated while Men In Black 2 was *slightly* underrated. Men In Black 3 is the first in the series that I would call almost-great.
A token amount of plot: After alien assassin 'Boris the Animal' (Jemaine Clement) breaks out of jail and vows revenge against the agent who put him away forty years ago, Agent K (Tommy Lee Jones) takes it personally, to the worry of his longtime partner Agent J (Will Smith). Attempts to find out what happened forty years ago turn up little, and Agent K seems just about ready to divulge an apparent secret when something somewhere changes the time stream and eradicates K from existence. Now Agent K is dead, with history having been rewritten and alien forces about to invade Earth due to circumstances that *didn't* happen forty years ago. It's up to J to travel back to 1969 and attempt to 'put right what once went wrong'. But he'll need the help of a much younger Agent K (Josh Brolin) to do it.
Well underneath the surface, the picture is a mediation on just what these extraterrestrial agents sacrifice when they basically delete themselves from existence and put on those black suits. It's something that I feel the films never really touched on, although the late-1990s WB cartoon series did on occasion. The idea of completely cutting yourself off from friends, family, and the general human existence is a potent one, and the cost arguably weighs heavy on these agents as they get older. Although it's somewhat played for laughs, the opening funeral of an older agent elicits a certain tragedy as his coworkers don't seem to have anything to say about him. This passing, as well as the return of old ghosts, puts Agent K in an ever more dour mood than ever, and it's frankly jolting to see Tommy Lee Jones almost on the verge of tears in the opening act. The film is too light to really commit to it hardcore, but there are touches of the whole 'what exactly are we giving up our lives for?' subtext that permeates the best espionage pictures (think Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, Breach, or even Brian DePalma's Mission: Impossible). Highlighting this arbitrariness is the picture's most engaging character, Griffin (Michael Stuhlberg). His curse is the ability to see every possible time line without any ability to control the outcome, and Stuhlberg almost single-handily gives the film's somewhat jokey second act a potency and pathos that elevates the proceedings.
Of course, being a Barry Sonnenfeld comedy, there are indeed a number of solid laughs. To the film's credit, very few of them belong to Josh Brolin. Brolin doesn't portray a young Agent K for laughs or for easy mimicry, but rather as a contrast to the somber and often silent elder agent. He's still straight-laced and all-business, but he's not the bitter shell of a man we know from the prior films (his best joke is one that explicitly deals with how old Brolin is in real life). No the real laughs belong to, among other people, Bill Hader who plays Andy Warhol in an extended cameo that's frankly much funnier than the trailers let on. As in the previous films, the special effects are relatively story-driven, used at either the behest of the narrative or for the sake of comedy. After The Avengers and Battleship, it's borderline subversive to have a mammoth and destructive present day alien invasion occurring entirely in the background.
There are a few action beats, including one brief chase that seems to exist only for marketing purposes, but the film plays as a pure time-travel detective story for most of its running time (for what it's worth, it's a casually violent picture that earns its PG-13). If the film has a real flaw, it is that it overlooks the rather barbaric code of conduct that the Men In Black operate under (basically our agents can torture and arbitrarily execute any alien whenever they want, as long as no humans are injured). I'm going to assume that Sonnenfeld and company weren't intentionally delivering an anti-due process moral but merely brought a 'hard-boiled private eye' sensibility to this story that involves government agents.
Will Smith may be a bit too old for his 'I make this look good!' shtick, but the film plays his age to its favor, with Smith portraying a man who holds onto his youthful attitude because he hasn't developed anything to replace it (he spends his nights playing video games by himself in a bare-bones apartment). Tommy Lee Jones doesn't have a huge amount of screen time, but he makes every second count with a weariness that brings to mind his climactic speech from No Country For Old Men. There are real pathos to the opening and closing reels, and Stuhlberg's fascinating time-watcher holds the fort during the comparatively slight middle act. There is also real tension and suspense in the token action climax, as the sense of foreboding allows us to truly fear for the survival of our heroic leads. And without going into details, the film's finale goes for emotion over FX razzle-dazzle, in a fashion that will make you look at the entire franchise in a new light. It's a jolt right at the end that elevates the film to a slightly higher plane even while completely playing fair with the audience and the franchise's internal logic.
Men In Black 3 isn't a piece of high art, but it is a surprisingly strong and refreshingly small-scale summer movie that puts character relationships over spectacle. It's funny, moving, and exciting without becoming overwhelming. It ranks among Barry Sonnenfeld's best films, not quite up there with Get Shorty or Addams Family Values but at least as solid as the underrated Big Trouble. I don't know whether the massive budget overruns and pricey talent deals make Men In Black 3 a good investment. But it's a surprise, a relief, and a pleasure to report that Men In Black 3 is a good movie.
Grade: B+
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Once again, Garrison Dean fashions a terrific fanmade Expendables trailer, this time with a 'Made in the USA' Expendables II preview.
I happen to think that the New York Times article that is used as the basis for this wonderful fan trailer is full of crap (cough-Fast Five, Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol-cough), but I still laughed my ass off at this pretty much the entire running time. And yes, just like two years ago, this Garrison Dean trailer is superior to the official Lionsgate one, although the official Expendables II trailer is indeed a better piece of work than the official Expendables trailer from summer 2010. Just enjoy this thing and wonder why Mr. Dean hasn't gotten a job from any of the trailer houses yet. I'm sure he would have had some choice words about the John Carter campaign.
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Summer movie musical chairs: Ted moves to June 29th.
Scott Mendelson
Money for nothing: A commercial (not artistic) defense of Paramount's decision to convert GI Joe Retaliation to 3D.
I have remarked several times that I was genuinely surprised that Universal opted not to go 3D for Battleship, since the film appeared to be (and arguably was) among the more soulless and corporate-minded would-be blockbusters in recent memory. At a cost of at least $210 million (and as much as $250 million), the film now appears to be an instant domestic flop after opening with $25 million. That puts the film on path to a $70 million domestic total, which will be added to the film's $215 million foreign total since the film debuted overseas on April 11th (Universal should have opened the film domestically that week too, but that's another story). Let's presume that it makes $70 million domestic and crawls to $255 million foreign giving the film a $325 million worldwide total. Let's presume that the film was converted to 3D for theatrical release. Just for domestic grosses, that would add at least 15% to the film's opening weekend (presuming a low-estimate of 40% 3D tickets sold over opening weekend at about 33% more money per ticket). Now $29 million wouldn't have made the film look like a smash, but add that over the course of its theatrical lifetime and a $70 million domestic gross becomes $80 million and an additional 15% worldwide turns the $325 million gross into $375 million. So for an estimated extra $15 million (and that's presuming that 3D conversions don't add less to the budget if they are planned from the get-go), Universal would have seen at least an extra $50 million in box office. And that's discounting the possibility that I've grossly underestimated the box office bump that 3D adds to overseas grosses, which I'd argue I have. Paramount cites foreign markets as the reason for the conversion, and I don't think they'd be spending $15-20 million on a 3D conversion for an extra $50 million in global grosses.
Last summer Thor grossed $181 million while X-Men: First Class grossed $146 million at the domestic box office. Thor was in 3D while X-Men: First Class went out as 2D-only. Had the latter been in 3D, using the above calculations (plus discounting that Thor actually sold 60% of its tickets via 3D over its opening weekend and not 40%), their domestic grosses would have been nearly identical with the X-Men prequel/reboot grossing $168 million in America. And while The Avengers still would have broken the opening weekend record three weeks ago if the film went out as 2D-only, the 3D bump is the primary reason it not only broke the Fri-Sun record but soared over $200 million, which looks a lot sexier in news headlines than $175-180 million, which is the arguable weekend gross had the film went out without the post-conversion. Fox's Rise of the Planet of the Apes would have crossed $200 million in America and $500 million worldwide with a 3D theatrical distribution. Warner Bros' Green Lantern was still a costly flop in 3D, but the film would not have even crossed $100 million domestic and $200 million worldwide if it had forsaken the (admittedly terrific) 3D conversion. Assuming you can add 3D to your would-be blockbuster for less than 8% of your budget, then doing so when the likely result is at least 15% more in worldwide revenue is at this point a no-brainer. You're damn right that Fox probably insisted that Ridley Scott shoot Prometheus in 3D before green-lighting its production cost and/or given the okay for the eventual R-rating.
The March 29th release date is arguably about trying to put a pure summer movie in the 'Spring movie season' with hopes that a barren marketplace will yield Fast & Furious type results. The 3D conversion is a perceived necessary evil that Paramount arguably believes will result in a lot of heavy breathing and not iota of damage done to the film's box office. We may all whine about the delay and the 3D convert, but we will still be first in line to see G.I. Joe: Retaliation next March. The general moviegoers have consistently voted with their dollars, choosing 3D and its resultant ticket price-bump around 40-60% of the time even as studios get smarter about plentiful 2D options. That the film is being moved so far in advance means that Paramount doesn't want to do it fast and lazy. They surely remember that The Last Airbender took grief from the press over its rushed 3D conversion just as they surely noticed that the infamously terrible film only grossed $300 million worldwide due to the 3D ticket-bump. Truth be told, this is only an issue for film critics who often have to choose between seeing the movie early in 3D or waiting for opening day in 2D (only Warner Bros. goes out of their way to offer multi-format press screenings). General consumers will see G.I. Joe: Retaliation in whatever format they choose when the time comes. As far as artistic concerns, the 2D version will still exist and will still be available to see at a theater near you.
We may eventually learn that the 3D conversion was motivated by concerns over the film's quality, although nothing heard thus-far would indicate as much. I don't like the delay and I'm not thrilled that the film will know face additional critical scrutiny over a 3D conversion that its director likely never intended. It's ironic that G.I. Joe 2 is being retrofitted to appeal to non-US audiences, especially as Paramount tried to make the G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra a player in the red state/blue state culture wars three summers ago (if you recall, they basically hid the film from critics claiming it was a movie for 'regular folk' and not uppity film snobs). But from a purely commercial perspective, converting G.I. Joe: Retaliation to 3D makes complete business sense. For a token increase in budget Paramount is betting that a 3D G.I. Joe 2 will monumentally out-gross a 2D version in the foreign box office markets. And precedent is on their side, making it a no-brainer. But that doesn't mean you have to like it.
Scott Mendelson
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Baz Luhrmann's The Great Gatsby gets a truly hilarious trailer.
Back in 2004, I cut a series of fake trailers for my personal amusement. My favorite of these was a trailer I cut for Pay It Forward which sold the film as a tense and violent thriller ("On October 18th... no good deed goes unpunished!"). I used the music from the film and footage completely from the movie, only cheating by using the Backdraft theme for a closing action montage. If I can find a copy of the thing, I'll put it on the site eventually. It's choppy by today's standards, but this was before the whole 'satirical trailer mash' was a thing. This Great Gatsby trailer feels like the same kind of thing, attempting to sell a somewhat reserved adult romantic drama as an uber-glitzy and action-packed melodrama. Of course, since Baz Luhrmann's at the helm, that's probably not a false sell. Depending on your feelings regarding the original novel and/or your thoughts about Luhrmann, that may be a good or a bad thing. I liked the novel when I read it once in twelve grade, finding it a fine deconstruction of the whole 'girl who got away' myth that still dominates romantic melodrama. But if Luhrmann wants to play around with it, have at it.
On the surface, this looks like Warner Bros. trying to sell a classic novel, one that probably 90% of today's kids have to read in high school, as an in-your-face sizzle fest. But I know better than I did as a younger film pundit. Back in late 1996 when his Romeo and Juliet came out, I took personal affront to the idea that kids today could only enjoy Shakespeare if it were turned into an MTV music video. This seems like the same play, but I'm too old to be offended at this idea anymore. Besides, at this point, it's clear that the ritzy-sexy-glitzy shtick is more Luhrmann's personal quirk than any attempt to pander to today's kids. Anyway, this trailer is pretty funny, not only using contemporary music but using the same song that Universal used prominently in the Safe House campaign just a few months ago. Tobey Maguire actually looks younger than he has since the first Spider-Man while Leonardo DiCaprio has to be wondering if he'll ever look old enough to play an adult. Anyway, The Great Gatsby (in 3D!!!!) opens on December 25th, so teachers assign those book reports BEFORE Christmas!
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
Lego Batman 2: DC Super Heroes looks to be the perfect Father's Day gift. Especially if Allison plays too...
This may be among the last video games I buy as an adult until my kids are old enough to actively play them with me. I bought Lego Pirates of the Caribbean a few months ago for $20 and have played it only a few times since then. I'm possibly getting to that 'old man' stage where I am consciously aware of what a waste of time it is to play video games even when the time does present itself (I've been tempted to pick up Max Payne 3, but will probably wait until it's cheap). Of course, once Allison and/or Ethan are old enough to play along (Allison should be within the next year), then I'll have an alibi. And I can't imagine Allison won't get a huge kick out of this one if it's not too difficult, as she's a pretty big superhero fan, something I didn't exactly force upon her but have certainly not discouraged. She quite enjoys The Avengers: Earth's Mightiest Heroes and Young Justice and the only reason I haven't agreed to take her to see The Avengers is because its 140 minutes long. So yeah, this looks like an obscene amount of fun. And yes, I'll probably ask for this one for a Father's Day gift. Because even if I don't have the time to dive headfirst into such a video game, Allison will be able and willing soon enough. And when she and I are kicking ass across Gotham City as Batman and Wonder Woman respectively (or whomever she wants to be), it won't be a waste of time at all, will it?
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
Review: The Intouchables (2012) is a broad and simplistic 'American' race/class comedy, but in French.
The Intouchables
2012112 minutes
rated R
This film opens in limited release on May 25th.
by Scott Mendelson
I've written about this from time-to-time, but there is occasionally an odd effect that comes from labeling a film 'arthouse' or 'foreign' that gives it a certain critical allure. If Sucker Punch had been French, would critics have been more willing to plumb the film's social critiques? If Drive had been released as is but as a major studio release with Hugh Jackman instead of a mid-level release with Ryan Gosling, would the critics have swooned to the same degree? Robert Rodriguez remarked nearly twenty years ago that the Spanish subtitles found in El Mariachi led critics to find copious symbolism in what was intended as a cheap exploitation picture. And so it is that The Intouchables has become an international sensation, grossing $339 million overseas and becoming (I believe...) the most successful French export of all-time. The mystique of subtitles and its obvious 'foreignness' has caused many to give a pass to what is as conventional, generic, and contrived a comedy as anything released by Adam Sandler or Eddie Murphy in these United States.
As a commentary on race, it is arguably the kind of movie many critics wrongly accused The Help of being. But even ignoring the skin colors of its leading men (as writers and directors Olivier Nakache, Eric Toledano arguably wish us to), the film fails as a study of individual humanity, as both of its stars are presented as broadest and most cliched class-related stereotypes imaginable. Based on a true story, this light and explicitly frothy concoction concerns a relationship that develops between paralyzed aristocrat Phillipe (François Cluzet) and Driss (Omar Sy), the lower-class drifter who finds himself hired on as a caretaker. There is no law saying that every film involving cross-racial relationships has to make some kind of defining statement about racism or race-relations in general, but there should be a rule against painting such broad character strokes using painfully obvious and patronizing stereotypes. If you read the above one-sentence plot synopsis and are now attempting to guess where the film goes, you'd be correct.
Upper-class Phillipe and lower-class Driss eventually warm to each other and their relationship blossoms into a mutually beneficial friendship. But of course Driss has to be astonished by the upper class luxuries he encounters and baffled by 'upper-class culture' such as modern art and classical music. Of course Phillipe has to learn to appreciate more modern music and/or to appreciate the little things. Of course the street-smart Driss impresses everyone with a quasi hip-hop dance and teaches the stuffy Phillipe how to pick up chicks. Of course they bond over indulging in vices and condescendingly dealing with the women in their lives. Even putting aside race for a moment, the cultural and socio-economic stereotypes at-play would make even Tyler Perry's worst films feel three-dimensional and culturally nuanced.
If one can put aside all of the societal implications of global audiences embracing such a condescending portrait filled with trite cliches and borderline offensive caricatures, one is still left with a dreadfully uninspired portrait filled with paint-by-numbers storytelling and paper-thin characters. Even if one can find the possibility that the film is a metaphor for the idea that France will soon have to rely on its immigrants that it now treats with disdain, one is still left with a painfully broad and often sexist would-be comedy that would make have been torn to shreds and openly mocked had it been an American production with American movie stars. Yes, Harvey Weinstein is planning a remake with Colin Firth and it will be interesting to see how its received.
As is, The Intouchables is not an evil film but a cheerfully ignorant one, whose commentary veers dangerously close to Bamboozled territory. If anything, I cannot help but wonder if it is actually an attempt to create a comedy in the manner of how the world perceives American comedy. It is no secret that the French perceives themselves as more culturally enlightened than we Americans, so the film can either be read as merely a boneheaded and self-aggrandizing portrait of two walking cliches that borders on racist and classist, or some kind of meta-commentary regarding how the French think the American public sees race and class relations. Either way, The Intouchables is a pretty dreary film, something that would arguably all-the-more obvious without those pesky 'elitist subtitles'.
Grade: C-
Sony apparently plans to reveal all 120-minutes of The Amazing Spider-Man via clips and previews before July 3rd.
Scott Mendelson
Six Minutes Of "The Amazing Spider-Man(TM)" To Run Before "Men In Black(TM) 3" In IMAX® 3D And Select Theaters
CULVER CITY, Calif., May 22, 2012 -- Sony Pictures Entertainment confirmed that six minutes of the highly anticipated film The Amazing Spider-Man(TM) will be shown in IMAX® 3D and other select theaters with Men In Black(TM) 3, it was announced today by Rory Bruer, President of Worldwide Distribution for Sony Pictures Worldwide Marketing and Distribution. The footage, which will play before the feature film, is available to fans during the engagement of Men In Black 3.
Commenting on the announcement, Bruer said, "We're thrilled to give moviegoers a chance to get an extended taste of the movie in IMAX 3D and other select theaters. The audience for Men In Black 3 is a perfect match for this footage - there's something new here for everyone, and we think this six minutes of The Amazing Spider-Man will get everyone excited for what we have in store."
"Having seen the spectacular footage I'm even more excited for IMAX moviegoers to experience this new chapter in the story of Peter Parker in anticipation of the film's release in our theaters," said Greg Foster, Chairman and President, IMAX Filmed Entertainment.
One of the world's most popular characters is back on the big screen as a new chapter in the Spider-Man legacy is revealed in The Amazing Spider-Man(TM). Focusing on an untold story that tells a different side of the Peter Parker story, the new film stars Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, Rhys Ifans, Denis Leary, Campbell Scott, Irrfan Khan, with Martin Sheen and Sally Field. The film is directed by Marc Webb from a screenplay written by James Vanderbilt and Alvin Sargent and Steve Kloves from a story by James Vanderbilt, based on the Marvel Comic Book by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko. Laura Ziskin, Avi Arad, and Matt Tolmach are producing the film in association with Marvel Entertainment for Columbia Pictures, which will open in theaters everywhere in 3D on July 3, 2012.
The Amazing Spider-Man is the story of Peter Parker (Garfield), an outcast high schooler who was abandoned by his parents as a boy, leaving him to be raised by his Uncle Ben (Sheen) and Aunt May (Field). Like most teenagers, Peter is trying to figure out who he is and how he got to be the person he is today. Peter is also finding his way with his first high school crush, Gwen Stacy (Stone), and together, they struggle with love, commitment, and secrets. As Peter discovers a mysterious briefcase that belonged to his father, he begins a quest to understand his parents' disappearance - leading him directly to Oscorp and the lab of Dr. Curt Connors (Ifans), his father's former partner. As Spider-Man is set on a collision course with Connors' alter-ego, The Lizard, Peter will make life-altering choices to use his powers and shape his destiny to become a hero.
In Men In Black(TM) 3, Agents J (played by Will Smith) and K (played by Tommy Lee Jones) are back... in time. J has seen some inexplicable things in his 15 years with the Men In Black, but nothing, not even aliens, perplexes him as much as his wry, reticent partner. But when K's life and the fate of the planet are put at stake, Agent J will have to travel back in time to put things right. J discovers that there are secrets to the universe that K never told him -- secrets that will reveal themselves as he teams up with the young Agent K (played by Josh Brolin) to save his partner, the agency, and the future of humankind. Barry Sonnenfeld directs the film. The film's screenplay is written by Etan Cohen, based on the Malibu Comic by Lowell Cunningham. Walter F. Parkes and Laurie MacDonald produce, and Steven Spielberg and G. Mac Brown are the executive producers.
About Sony Pictures Entertainment (SPE) is a subsidiary of Sony Corporation of America, a subsidiary of Tokyo-based Sony Corporation. SPE's global operations encompass motion picture production and distribution; television production and distribution; home entertainment acquisition and distribution; a global channel network; digital content creation and distribution; operation of studio facilities; development of new entertainment products, services and technologies; and distribution of entertainment in more than 159 countries. For additional information, go to http://www.sonypictures.com/
SOURCE Sony Pictures Entertainment
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Dark Knight Rises gets a pretty solid theatrical one-sheet and six rain or snow-soaked character posters..
Scott Mendelson
Paul Thomas Anderson's The Master gets a teaser.
P.T. Anderson's long-awaited follow-up to There Will Be Blood is allegedly a fictionalized version of the origins of Scientology (with Philip Seymour Hoffman playing an L. Ron Hubbard-esque figure), but this teaser has nothing of that nature to tease. Instead all we get is a jittery Joaquin Phoenix nervously being interrogated by an authority figure about an unseen incident. Obviously this is an exceedingly cryptic little clip, but for die-hard fans (I've liked all of his four of his previous films but only loved Magnolia) it will have to do. The Master opens on October 12th. As always, we'll see.
Scott Mendelson
Watch/Discuss: Skyfall gets a sparse but imposing teaser.
This is a teaser in the best sense of the word, sharing absolutely no real plot details and barely intruding any major characters. All you need to know is that Daniel Craig and Judy Dench are back in their respective roles and that something called 'skyfall' is the cause of some genuine trouble. The film looks lush and colorful with a handful of scenes suggesting not just Bond attempting to prevent a cataclysm but dealing with the aftermath of one. The footage suggests an intimacy that befits the Craig 007 pictures with a slightly larger scope this time around. As someone who loved Casino Royale and damn-well liked Quantum of Solace, I hope they haven't altered the formula too much in response to the latter film's inexplicable critical rejection. I know I say this a lot, but part of me hopes that Sony has the guts to let this stand as the primary marketing tool for the picture, without the need to release a 150-second plot-centric trailer sometime in August. Still, this looks like both a solid James Bond picture and a declarative 'up yours' to The Bourne Legacy. Skyfall drops on November 9th in America in 35mm and IMAX. As always, we'll see.
Scott Mendelson
Scott Mendelson
Sunday, May 20, 2012
Weekend Box Office (05/20/12): Battleship sinks, The Dictator and What To Expect When You're Expecting stumble, while The Avengers charges on.
With a production cost of anywhere from $210-$250 million, Universal's Battleship debuted with $25 million this weekend. That's lower than the last 'lemmings off a cliff' project John Carter which opened with $30 million last March before crawling to $70 million. But even that domestic total is unlikely for Battleship, as the Disney epic had the fortune of being attached to drive-in double-bills with The Avengers for the last three weeks, which goosed grosses just a bit. Like John Carter, Battleship did okay overseas, as it opened in most foreign territories five weeks ago. Its foreign run is almost over, and its $226 million total isn't what Universal was hoping for when they decided to open it everywhere-but-here. Again, the quality of the film and lack of must-see factors aside, the budget was the biggest culprit. Had this raging mediocrity cost less than $150 million, its likely $300-350 million worldwide total would have been an eventual break-even proposition. But with cost of as much as $250 million plus marketing, this board game adaptation *needed* to be global phenomenon to make its money back, which as I've always said is a terrible idea for anything that's not a guaranteed slam dunk.
But with a board game mostly remembered by older audiences, an alien invasion plot that reeked of Transformers rip-off and a cast that included a young man few have heard of, a pop singer, and a super model in lead roles, the film's marketing campaign basically advertised that it was explicitly not quality entertainment. Again, and I mentioned this back when John Carter debuted, there was a painful cynicism and condescension at work with the expectations that audiences would flock to what damn-well looked like Blockbuster: The Movie purely because it was hyped as the next big thing. Universal took a beating over 2009 and 2010 with a slate of original and/or adult-skewing films that mostly under-performed or outright tanked (State of Play, Duplicity, Funny People, The Wolfman, The Green Zone, Scott Pilgrim Vs. the World, etc). Now it seems they have sadly learned the wrong lesson (don't spend more than $50 million on adult films) and decided to become a tentpole factory. With Battleship, Snow White and the Huntsman (which to be fair looks a lot better and may capitalize on Kristen Stewart's Twilight fanbase), and the wildly over-budget 47 Samurai, it looks like Universal is trying to play the Warner Bros/Paramount game. Let's hope that Universal's Savages (a star-packed R-rated drug thriller from Oliver Stone) is a big hit in July, as it and this February's Safe House ($120 million+) will theoretically teach Universal to stick to what it does best, albeit at a reasonable cost (Taylor Kitsch stars in that one too and he deserves a break).
There were two comedy openers this weekend and neither of them made much of an impact. Paramount intended to release the Sacha Baron Cohen satire The Dictator last Friday, but fled to this Wednesday after they realized that Warner Bros' Dark Shadows was a dark comedy (in theory) as well. So they instead opened on Wednesday, which as I always say is a majestically stupid thing to do if you don't have a fanbase chomping at the bit. Generally speaking, films will open over the weekend to the same dollar figure no matter how many days they have in that weekend. So instead of having a respectable $24.5 million Fri-Sun debut, they have to explain a $24.5 million Wed-Sun debut and a $17 million Fri-Sun debut. The film cost $70 million, which is nuts for this kind of movie, but at least it's doing okay overseas where it earned another $30 million giving it a decent $54 million global cume. Obviously this one isn't going to come anywhere near Fox's Borat ($126 million domestic) and may end up under Universal's Bruno ($60 million), but Cohen should be fine if he can keep his budgets more reasonable from here-on-out.
In holdover news, The Avengers (review, essay, and spoiler discussion) again topped the box office, this time with $55 million. Alas, this is not the largest third-weekend in history, as Avatar's $68 million New Year's weekend still claims that mark (Disney weeps). But in terms of third weekends not backed by a holiday, it's far above Spider-Man ($45 million), The Dark Knight ($42 million), or Shrek 2 ($37 million). With $457 million, it's bested The Dark Knight's race to $450 million and now seems sure to topple The Dark Knight's $533 million domestic total in just a few weeks for the title as third-biggest grosser in America (behind Titanic and Avatar). With $1.18 billion globally, it's the fourth-biggest film of all-time domestically and sits with a few weeks of toppling Transformers: Dark of the Moon ($1.2 billion) and Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows part II ($1.3 billion) to take the title of the biggest-grossing film not directed by James Cameron. Tim Burton's Dark Shadows (review) dropped 57% in weekend two for a $12.7 million second-weekend and a $50 million cume. The picture should finish up just under $80 million, with about that much overseas, which would have been fine if the vampire comedy had cost $80-$100 million and not $150 million. In better news, the would-be indie breakout The Best Exotic Marigold Hotel rose 21% despite not adding any theaters, earning a scorching $18,000 per-screen on just 178 screens. The film now has $8 million after three weekends of play, which means I don't even want to try to predict the end-game on this film (no I haven't seen it yet, but yes I will try to once my work schedule lightens up a bit).
The Hunger Games now sits with $391 million as it tries to get to $400 million before losing its screens to the June slate. Think Like A Man took a dive this weekend, dropping 53% and earning $2.7 million. With $85 million thus far, $100 million is somewhat of a long shot, but not impossible. The Pirates: Band of Misfits crossed $25 million this weekend, and the jam-packed audience I saw it with on Saturday afternoon suggests my theory about Madagascar 3 breaking out in June due to a lack of kid flicks is probably accurate (my daughter didn't care much for it, and I can't entirely disagree with her, although it's harmless and occasionally clever). Cabin in the Woods crossed $40 million this weekend, which is a huge win for a film that almost didn't get released due to inter-studio politics. Bernie sits with $1.1 million as it slowly expands over 100 screens. Still, films like Bernie and the just released Hysteria (a comedy about the invention of the vibrator) damn-well could have prospered beyond art-house success if the studios had the muscle/courage to treat them as mainstream releases (the latter scored $40,000 on five screens). The Lucky One has $57 million (a fine result, don't let anyone tell you otherwise), The Five-Year Engagement has $27 million, American Reunion has amassed $57 million here and $200 million worldwide. Safe is basically done with $16 million, and The Three Stooges has $41 million. Oh and Titanic 3D has $57 million domestic and $283 million worldwide.
That's it for this weekend. Join us next time for Memorial Day weekend, when Sony unleashes Men In Black 3 (review on Tuesday) while Warner Bros. releases The Chernobyl Diaries. Until then, well you know the drill...
Scott Mendelson